Posts Tagged ‘random’

I was watching a Military History program called “No Surrender: German and Japanese Kamikazes” about the birth of the Japanese kamikaze pilots of WW2 yesterday.

If you have knowledge of the dilemma of the German generals – with a fanatic Führer screaming orders and a fanatic youth who would have lined the generals up and shot them for treason or cowardice if they’d failed to continue to wage the war – you shouldn’t be surprised to learn that the exact same dilemma slapped the Japanese admirals in the face. We find that neither top military leadership could stop the war or even de-escalate the atrocities.

First let’s talk briefly about Nazi Germany. Germany was the official seat of the Protestant Revolution with Martin Luther nailing his 95 Theses to the church door in Wittenberg. But well before the end of the 19th century, Germany had strayed far from God, indeed. It had in fact become the most atheistic nation in all of Europe and in all of Christendom and in all of Western Civilization.

The perversion and degradation of German culture began in the minds of the German intellectuals. Even in the very last days of Nazi Germany, with thousands of bombers devastating helpless German cities every single day, Germany led the world in science and philosophy. What we found – or at least what we should have found – is that science and academia and vicious, murderous barbarism could easily come together to the worst horror imaginable. We also should have found that ideas have consequences.

It turns out that Japanese admirals were in a very similar bind coming from the younger Japanese officers. When the admirals first watched the first kamikaze pilots ignore their orders and fly their planes into American navy ships, they were utterly horrified. Imperial Japan was not at least not initially a nation in which the old ordered the young to their deaths from behind the safety of the front lines; it was a war in which a fanatic youth with the best modern Darwinian educations breathed in the toxic ideas they had been fed throughout their entire lives and took those ideas to their natural conclusion.

It was the young pilots who had been the best students in science and technology who alone had the sheer fanaticism to transform themselves into human bombs. Darwinism didn’t stop them from barbarism; it informed their barbarism and made them barbarous. More than 4,000 of the most “scientific” and technically literate minds in Japan died committing suicide in order to try to kill their enemies. These young fanatic officers ignored their older superiors and forced the admiralty to embrace total war to the death.

Because ideas have consequences. And these young minds that had been so thoroughly poisoned by evolution and Darwinism rose up and lived out the implications of what they had been indoctrinated in.

Let’s put it this way, if you’re a secular humanist or a Darwinist, please explain to me how Darwinism does not entail Social Darwinism. I mean, if Darwinian evolution is in fact true, if there is no God, no heaven or hell, no judgment, if we are random byproducts of a purposeless, meaningless, valueless universe that will ultimate swallow us up again the same random way it spat us out, then just why should we love and sacrifice for one another when it is far easier and far more profitable to crush and kill them instead? All Social Darwinism really is is consistently living out the consequences of scientific Darwinism. There is no Creator to whom we will be held to account on Judgment Day; there is no Imago Dei; we are nothing more than animals; and the animal world is a world in which the strong dominate and the weak die out.

Darwinian morality is as vicious as it is violent.

Let’s start with the fact that evolutionists claim that their system of Darwinism is simply the way the world works. Assume that’s true for a moment. And then look at the world around you. Because like it or not, Darwinism entails social Darwinism. What is true for nature must be true for the individual and society. If nature progresses by competition for survival, and the victory of the strong over the weak, then all progress must come the same way. If the law of the bloody claw is not entailed evolution, just how is it not entailed? How does the 4 billion year history of earth as envisioned by Darwinians not demonstrate that might makes right and it is far better to kill your enemy than it is to turn the other cheek to it? If life is an unceasing struggle for existence, and its outcome is the survival of the fittest, as Darwin claimed, then that is how we ought to function as individuals and as a society.

Modern Darwinians want to use their system to violently club God to death, then drop that club and say, “Now that Darwinism has killed God and religion, let’s not live as if our system that says life is a struggle for existence in which only the fittest survive and the weak are a threat to the rest of the herd is actually true.” Like so many other elements of Darwinian thought, there is a massive self-contradiction.

Why do we as individuals rape, murder and sleep around? Because “rape is (in the vernacular of evolutionary biology) an adaptation, a trait encoded by genes that confers an advantage on anyone who possesses them. Back in the late Pleistocene epoch 100,000 years ago, men who carried rape genes had a reproductive and evolutionary edge over men who did not: they sired children not only with willing mates, but also with unwilling ones, allowing them to leave more offspring (also carrying rape genes) who were similarly more likely to survive and reproduce, unto the nth generation. That would be us. And that is why we carry rape genes today. The family trees of prehistoric men lacking rape genes petered out.” Darwinism is “a scientific idea that, if true, consigns traditions of self-restraint, loyalty, the very basis of family life, to the shredder.” Now go ye and do likewise. Unless something inside of you screams “NO! I will NOT live in accordance with that terrible, wicked, demonic theory of Darwinian evolution!”

As was once stated in Time Australia Magazine:

Japan, war, and evolution
Source: TIME Australia, August 14, 1995 (p. 83). First published in CREATION Magazine Volume 18 number 2. Pages 7 to 9. December 1995 – February 1996.

This century has seen countless millions killed –more than in all known wars of human history put together – in the name of ideologies that owe their inspiration and justification directly to evolution.

The Nazis used this ‘science falsely so-called’ to justify treating other races as sub-human. Engaging in war, even genocide, could hardly be wrong, so they thought, since it made their version of the ‘fittest’ more likely to survive.

Communism’s dialectic materialism required belief in evolution for intellectual respectability. Stalin’s butchery is directly linked to his renunciation of God (and thus all notions of sin and judgment) after reading Darwin’s book. Mao Zedong, responsible for the deaths of tens of millions, listed Darwin and Huxley as his two favourite authors.

Few have realized, however, the degree to which Japanese thinking leading up to and during World War II was also heavily influenced by Darwin.

Japanese thought blended the theistic with the evolutionary. They were a chosen people because the Emperor was a descendant of the sun goddess; they were a master race because they were more highly evolved. Japanese biologists ‘produced studies decrying the apish physical features of other races (hairiness, long arms) and noting the highly evolved characteristics of the Japanese’ (which included milder body odour).

The horrors of Changi, the Burma railroad, and the various death marches of World War II showed a people renowned for cultural gentility treating their wartime captives as totally subhuman. Once you have made any group of people less than human in your thinking, backed up by the authority of ‘science’, it becomes a powerful justification for plain old sin.

If instead of Darwinism, the scientific world had been disseminating the truth that we are all closely related, being the descendants of Adam and Eve through Noah, what a difference we could have seen in the history of the last hundred years!

So yeah, evolution and Darwinism. And Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia and Maoist China. Like peas in a pod.

I would submit that it’s not merely that through Adam and Eve “we are all closely related,” but that we have a Creator to whom we are accountable for how we treat one another that ultimately matters. Because if someone is about to rob and murder you, do you really think they would stop if you just told them that we all randomly mutated from some common ape ancestor?

I saw something in the Los Angeles Times editorials. Jon Wiener wrote on January 18:

Your editorial calling on Egyptian President Mohamaed Morsi to apologize for describing Zionists as ‘descendents of apes and pigs’ is only half right. We are all descendents of apes, more or less.

Morsi is congratulated for embracing the theory of evolution at a time when so many of our own Christian leaders reject it. No apology is necessary there. It’s the pigs that are the problem.

The following day, in the paper’s “Mailbag” section, writers explained away the insulting comparison to the pigs, too. No harm calling Jews descendents of apes and pigs, no foul.

Here’s the thing: Wiener and those who piled on after him completely missed the point of Morsi’s claim and proceeded to make the same error themselves. Morsi was most decidedly NOT saying that Arabs are likewise the descendents of apes and pigs; he was clearly saying that Jews ARE such descendents but that he and those who think like him are not. And Jon Wiener, good liberal secular humanist that he is, likewise thinks that while all human beings are the random by-products of the union of mindless and soulless apes, he and his fellow liberal secular humanists are not.

It’s the same mistake, of course, that the Nazis and the Japanese committed: they believed in Darwinism for everybody else, but somehow exempted themselves from the animal state that they so so clearly in their millions of victims.

Gleason Archer exposed the moral and logical idiocy of secular humanism with the following:

“But it should be pointed out that consistent atheism, which represents itself to be the most rational and logical of all approaches to reality, is in actuality completely self-defeating and incapable of logical defense. That is to say, if indeed all matter has combined by mere chance, unguided by any Higher Power of Transcendental Intelligence, then it necessarily follows that the molecules of the human brain are also the product of mere chance. In other words, we think the way we do simply because the atoms and molecules of our brain tissue happen to have combined in the way they have, totally without transcendental guidance or control. So then even the philosophies of men, their system of logic and all their approaches to reality are the result of mere fortuity. There is no absolute validity to any argument advanced by the atheist against the position of theism.

On the basis of his won presuppositions, the atheist completely cancels himself out, for on his own premises his arguments are without any absolute validity. By his own confession he thinks the way he does simply because the atoms in his brain happen to combine the way they do. If this is so, he cannot honestly say that his view is any more valid than the contrary view of his opponent. His basic postulates are self-contradictory and self-defeating; for when he asserts that there are no absolutes, he thereby is asserting a very dogmatic absolute. Nor can he logically disprove the existence of God without resorting to a logic that depends on the existence of God for its validity. Apart from such a transcendent guarantor of the validity of logic, any attempts at logic or argumentation are simply manifestations of the behavior of the collocation of molecules that make up the thinker’s brain.”

You see, these communists, these fascists, these secular humanists, these progressive liberals, they claim that we’re all just meat puppet herd animals. But somehow they exempt themselves and believe that they – who are just as much mindless random-chance by-products of evolution as everyone around them, can and somehow should still make all of the decisions for the rest of us.

I just wish that the evolutionists and Darwinians who argue that we are the random-chance product of mindless apes would confine their hateful ideology to themselves and leave the rest of us out of it. But they actually do far worse; they make it ALL about the rest of us and leave themselves out of it. That way we have the master race bureaucrats to make all our rules for us.

The doctrine of evolution intrinsically dehumanizes. There is no God who lovingly created man in His own image, there is no God-given moral nature. There is no meaning, no purpose and no value. There is only nature and bloody violence and then more and more and more violence. And ultimately there is only extinction in the cold depths of space as the mindless process that randomly spawned human beings just as mindlessly swallows it all back up again.

It’s interesting that in Revelation 15, when angels preach to the human race during the Tribulation, they say, “Fear God and give Him glory, because the hour of His judgment has come, and worship Him who made heaven and earth, the sea and the springs of water” (Rev 15:7). Just as World War Two was the product of mindless evolutionary dogma, so also will Armageddon be the result of the same dogma.

– “We have the AARP on board because they know this is a good deal for our seniors. (Applause.)”

– “Well, first of all, another myth that we’ve been hearing about is this notion that somehow we’re going to be cutting your Medicare benefits. We are not. AARP would not be endorsing a bill if it was undermining Medicare, okay?”

I mean, GEEZ! This former community organizer has been angered that communities have organized. And the Democrats are out demonizing conservatives for organizing even as Obama starts up his new “Organizing for America.” Free speech was the highest form of dissent until Democrats took over everything and started demonizing any dissent. Where do you go to get such naked chutzpah?

At his incredibly organized Portsmouth town hall event, Obama said:

“OK, I’ve only got time for a couple more questions. Somebody here who has a concern about health care that has not been raised, or is skeptical and suspicious and wants to make sure that — because I don’t want people thinking I just have a bunch of plants in here. All right, so I’ve got one right here — and then I’ll ask the guy with two hands up because he must really have a burning question. (Laughter.) All right, go ahead.”

The event was so scripted and so packed with Obama-friendly attenders that he literally couldn’t FIND someone who had a critical question.

Her question: “I saw — as I was walking in, I saw a lot of signs outside saying mean things about reforming health care. How do kids know what is true, and why do people want a new system that can — that help more of us?”

And if a little girl that cute says that people “outside” are mean, then how can you possibly NOT believe here?

Eleven-year-old Julia Hall asked: “How do kids know what is true, and why do people want a new system that can — that help more of us?”

The question opened the door for the president to respond to what he called an “underlying fear” among the public “that people somehow won’t get the care they need.”

Well, who was this little girl, who had been “randomly chosen” to ask a question after being “randomly picked by a computer” to attend the event?

Julia’s mother [Kathleen Manning] was an early Obama supporter and donor in Massachusetts during the presidential election, so she had previously met First Lady Michelle Obama, the Obama daughters Sasha and Malia, and Vice President Joe Biden.

In fact, she actually was a top mucky-muck in the Massachusetts Obama campaign operation.

What a shock that such a little girl with such a liberal Obama-supporting pedigree would be “randomly” selected to ask such a blatant set-up question (How come you’re so wonderful and the people who oppose your plan so evil?). What are the odds that THAT kind of a coincidence would occur?

What are the odds that all the mean people with the mean signs somehow didn’t end up getting their names drawn in that “random” drawing so they could be INSIDE instead?

The blatant audacity of hypocrisy. These people are demonizing folks who are coming out to tell anybody who will hear them that they don’t want this terrible heath care bill as “plants” and “orchestrated” and “organized” (not to mention “angry mobs” and “racists” and “Nazis”). But the plant simple truth is that these people are so phony that they can only assume that everybody else must be as phony as they are.

As I’ve mentioned before, we get Obama attending a phony, controlled, contrived, choreographed, orchestrated, organized, “Astroturf” town hall filled with plants even as his attack dogs demonize protesters as being “plants” and saying things like:

But the less support Obama and the Democrats have, the more rabid they are in demonizing more and more and more ordinary Americans who oppose their agenda.

Democrats keep pounding on conservatives for “organizing.” But 65% of independent voters now disapprove of Obama’s performance.

The Democrats are lying about their health care bill, and they are lying about the people who are increasingly opposing it.

Obama said:

Now, one of the things you’ve been doing in your campaign to change the situation is you’ve been striving for bipartisanship. I think it’s a wonderful idea, but my question is, if the Republicans actively refuse to participate in a reasonable way with reasonable proposals, isn’t it time to just say we’re going to pass what the American people need and what they want, without the Republicans? (Applause.)

But not only have Republicans offered a plan for health care reform, but Fox News reported the irony that a Republican was actually offering a proposal at the very moment that Obama was claiming Republicans weren’t offering “reasonable proposals.” And as for “reasonable,” there frankly aint a whole ought of Americans left who think YOUR proposal is reasonable, Mister President.

But you have to understand that Barack Obama is the president who told a woman that her mother might be better off “taking the painkiller” than having life-prolonging surgery. Barack Obama is the man who said this about his own grandmother having a hip replacement that would prolong her quality of life:

Q: And it’s going to be hard for people who don’t have the option of paying for it.

THE PRESIDENT: So that’s where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues. But that’s also a huge driver of cost, right?

I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here.

Q: So how do you — how do we deal with it?

THE PRESIDENT: …you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. It’s not determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some guidance. And that’s part of what I suspect you’ll see emerging out of the various health care conversations that are taking place on the Hill right now.

In other words, a death panel.

It’s buried deep within the beaurocracy, but don’t think it won’t become a part of any “public option.”

They can blame Republicans all they want, but given their total control over government, it’s THEIR OWN FAULT that they don’t have a health care bill that isn’t anything but a twisted ideological monstrosity.

Stop the lies and the demagoguery, Mr. President. Stop the partisan ideology. If you really want to reform health care, stop demonizing the authentic outrage American people and actually listen to them. Make your reform geninely bipartisan, and don’t offer any more “change” than the people are willing to accept.